March 24, 2009

People reading these things from you (Antonio da Rosa) are beginning to recognize your methods. Those disciples had already been saved prior to the cross and resurrection! When Jesus was prophesying to His disciples things that would later occur, the disciples certainly did not respond with a heart of unbelief! Otherwise, Jesus could not have told them, “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you,” (John 15:3). Instead, they did not fully understand the things Jesus told them due to their dullness of heart, as He pointed out to them while He was with them.

Their sorrow from having literally walked with Jesus, loved Him, and seen Him crucified clouded their minds so that at Mark 16: 9-11 these already saved people refused to believe that Christ had risen from the dead. The faith of these saved people was shaken severely, as was Thomas’, but upon seeing the risen Christ they believed. The lost should heed the words of Jesus: “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed,” (John 20:29b).

Let’s continue with the second and final installment of Phillip’s series. Do NOT miss the Editor’s Notes at the conclusion.

“After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either,” (Mark 16:12-13).

You said,

“Even after further testimony, they did not believe the resurrection.”

“It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles. And their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them,” (Luke 24:10-11).

You said,

“The disciples thought the account of the resurrection was like ‘idle tales’.”

“For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead,” (John 20:8-9).

You said,

“Even though Jesus was with the disciples, told them beforehand many times about His death and resurrection, they did not believe, nor knew the Scripture. But they were saved.”

My response to you concerning Mark 16:9-11 should be sufficient to answer your twisting of Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24:10-11. In all the cases you noted above, Jesus had not yet revealed Himself to them post-resurrection, and they had already been saved.

It is highly ironic of you to quote John 20:8-9, for it goes toward nicely making my point above concerning the dullness of the disciples’ understanding. You need to understand that the dullness of heart of already saved people who were pre-cross/pre-revealed resurrection is not to be compared with direct denial by lost people of the clearly revealed post-cross/post-revealed resurrection truth. This denial will leave a lost person lost, until they repent (change their minds) and believe.

You said,

“The Bible speaks for itself.”

Yes, it does speak for itself. And it will speak on that Day precisely to how you have mishandled the Word of Truth, unless you repent!

You said,

“Let me get this clear here, Phillip. Someone may be saved without adhering to the deity of Christ.”

Where do you get the idea that someone could be saved while in conscience denial of the Deity of Christ? Haven’t you read anything of what I wrote above concerning clearly revealed Inspired truth and the COSF in our day? Do you honestly think that a lost person could dishonor God by rejecting the truth of Christ’s Deity, and still become saved in that denial? Do lost people have the right to dictate to God what they must believe in order to be saved?

You said,

“But no one is going to believe in Jesus who disregards His death and resurrection.”

Hold the phone here! I thought your whole point above was to try and prove that a lost person could reject the clearly revealed truth of the cross and resurrection and become saved while continuing to reject it!

Such double-mindedness, as you demonstrate Antonio, is a glaring symptom of those who are in bondage to false doctrine.

Antonio, you wrote,

“But then you guys ask, why do we consistent Free Grace people preach the cross and resurrection? It is the greatest of testimonies on why Jesus Christ can be believed to secure one’s eternal destiny. Why would we shun the preaching of the cross which draws all men to God? God forbid that I fail to preach the cross and resurrection to men! It is through the knowlege (sic) that Jesus took the sin barrier away between God and man through His death for sin, and the message of His rising from the dead that a man will come to find Jesus able, authoritative, willing, and desiring to give eternal life! This is the basis for Christ’s offer!”

Excuse me again, but while you may tell the lost of the cross and resurrection, by failing to tell them that they must believe it in order to be saved, you certainly do not preach the cross and resurrection! And your claim to the label “Free Grace” is sad, for God’s free grace is found in the truth of the Gospel, which you twist and abuse to prop up the reductionist heresy of the Crossless Gospel!

To you, the Deity of Christ, His death on the cross, and bodily resurrection are merely the basis for the Gospel, and not the heart (1 Cor. 15:1-4) of the Gospel.

The Apostle Paul wrote, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1:16)

Paul did not preach the basis of the Gospel. He preached the Gospel! If the Gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), then to preach it means you are calling on the unsaved to believe it!

You, and Bob Wilkin of Grace Evangelical Society did not arrive at your doctrine via revelation from God, but instead from near worship of the late Zane Hodges. He was a man who was straight on the Gospel until the latter years of his life when he fell into the perverse reductionism that has ensnared you.

Do you mean to tell people that the content of saving faith has not been thoroughly known and/or understood by the New Testament Church until **Hodges came along and set the world wide body of Christ straight on it? Sounds very much like something the Mormons did in the 19th century when Joseph Smith came along and said everyone else was wrong, but him, and “restored” the Gospel that had supposedly been lost.

Antonio, you are too far out on a limb to protest too much.

To My Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

Hold strong to your faith and the truth of the Gospel. There are others in the GES like Wilkin and da Rosa. Names to be familiar with like: Rene Lopez, Bob Bryant and John Niemelä out there propagating their various redefinitions of the Word of Truth. Don’t be beguiled by them, for they themselves have been deceived by Satan. Instead, pray for their recovery, but steer a clear path away from and “avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).

Any attempt to befriend or fellowship with GES theological extremists is unwise. Fellowship and/or cooperation with GES membership will put you in danger of becoming entrapped by their doctrinal errors, potentially causing you to fall into the trap of their reductionist heresy. Tragically, some have.

I have warned you now children of God. Take heed lest you come under the corrupting influence of the GES reductionist assault on the saving message of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Phillip M. Evans

**Editor’s Note: The GES camp does indeed believe that the saving message of the Gospel was not fully known or understood until Zane Hodges was specially endowed of God to clarify it for everyone. This is expressed in an article at the pro-Crossless gospel blog Unashamed of Grace. The article is titled, I am proud to be one of Zane Hodges’ godchildren. The author equates Hodges’s value to that of: Enoch, Moses, Daniel, the apostles Paul and John. He, furthermore, equates Zane Hodges to Wycliffe, Luther, John Wesley and George Whitfield. Then he states, “It should hardly be a surprise that God is using Zane Hodges to bring a right understanding of the nature of saving faith.”

Editor’s Note: As you read the examples above in which Phillip documents then refutes da Rosa’s egregious errors and abuse of Scripture you might wonder whether these extreme views coming from him are an accurate representation of GES doctrine. Consider this: Antonio da Rosa is a featured workshop speaker at the 2009 GES National Conference. He was a speaker at a 2007 GES Regional Conference. If GES Executive Director, Bob Wilkin, had any genuine concerns with the reductionist extremism of da Rosa he would NOT feature him (da Rosa) at the GES National Conference. My point is this: When you read the extremist views coming from da Rosa, you are reading what is the accepted position of the GES.

9 comments:

Thanks for this two part series. One must wonder how men can come under the influence of this reductionist assault on the content of saving faith and accept it is biblical.

The Crossless Gospel has never been seen in Christian circles until Zane Hodges devised this system. I can expect well-meaning believers to over react to the obvious works-based teaching of Lordship Salvation and land in the reductionist heresy of Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society (GES). I have spoken to some folks that who have been recovered to a proper balance and understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The GES membership, however, is hardened in their allegiance to the man Hodges and his reductionism. They are impervious to any attempts to show them from the Bible they have checked out on Scripture in preference for the reductionism of Hodges.

Thankfully, the Crossless gospel is not found anywhere I am aware of outside the shrinking cell of theological extremists isolated in the GES.

The GES is meeting for their annual conference beginning March 30. Can you image meeting together to celebrate stripping the Gospel of the necessary content of saving faith. Then in regard to the man and his egregious errors who you just addressed, Antonio da Rosa, the GES (Bob Wilkin) scheduled him as a featured speaker for two workshops at the GES conference.

Here we have arguably the most out-of-balance man in his personal theology, a habitual plagiarist, and notorious for the most unethical behavior one can imagine in any circles: Christian or secular. Yesterday I corresponded personally with Bob Wilkin. He is personally aware of the poor behavior choices and doings of da Rosa, but Bob is unconcerned.

We have all witnessed the unethical behavior of da Rosa. Behavior that is unacceptable in any Christian circles, but he is being given a national platform. Furthermore, he has little to no formal training. Three years ago he and/or his friends were publicly suggesting he was a professor at small theological college. One man called that college to learn from the administration that da Rosa was only a student.

Nevertheless, all of this gives a strong indication of what the GES has been reduced to if they have give da Rosa a national platform to round out their speaker’s schedule.

Finally, the Crossless gospel is the most extreme form of reductionist heresy ever introduced to the New Testament church by one of its own, namely the late Zane Hodges.

The Crossless gospel is isolated in the GES and Lord willing it will never gain any traction outside the GES.

Phillip and Lou, thanks for the informative article. It is obvious that Satan is attacking the Gospel message using men who in their own arrogance feel they must change God's message to something else. Ironic that Zane Hodges and John MacArthur - two who have very opposing views are also guilty of professing an accursed message. We must stay vigilant in our defense of the truth. Thanks once again.

It is a true tragedy and shame that in the New Testament church there can be two polar opposite, radical departures from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ. LS errs by addition, where as the CG errs by subtraction.

You may appreciate the way Tim VP articulated this in Part 1 of this series. He wrote,

“It appears that the GES ‘gospel’ and the LS ‘gospel’ are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. Both deny Christ’s finished/perfect cross work as vindicated by His resurrection, the one by reducing it as un-necessary, the other by adding to it as insufficient. But of the two LS, it seems to me to be the most dangerous, as it is more subtle, harder to recognize and more widespread.

These errors always seem to come in offsetting pairs. It is one of Satan’s devices to try to throw God's children off balance. Jesus said ‘My sheep hear My voice...’ in His Word, and not these stranger's voices.”

You need to understand that the dullness of heart of already saved people who were pre-cross/pre-revealed resurrection is not to be compared with direct denial by lost people of the clearly revealed post-cross/post-revealed resurrection truth. This denial will leave a lost person lost, until they repent (change their minds) and believe.

Thank you!!!

Excuse me again, but while you may tell the lost of the cross and resurrection, by failing to tell them that they must believe it in order to be saved, you certainly do not preach the cross and resurrection!

Thanks Lou, I'm glad to have had a part in defending the Gospel message here.

Even after you gave Bob Wilkin of GES clear evidence of Antonio da Rosa's behavior, Wilkin still gives him a platform at an official GES conference. That speaks directly to the character and spiritual condition of Wilkin. Hopefully things of this sort will help to further isolate and minimize the influence of these men.

Jan and Pops, you're very welcome. Heretics will assault the Gospel from all sides, as Satan will use different angles to try and trap as many as he can.

Not long ago I was able to share the following with a man who noted that he has been recently recovered from Calvinism and Lordship Salvation. I want to bring this comment back and may do so at various intervals because IMO it is a helpful note and caution to some who may be drifting from one extreme toward another.

Sir:

It is a blessing to learn that you have been recovered from Reformed and Lordship Salvation (LS) theology. Yours is an all to infrequent testimony, but a blessing to know it.

What folks like you must be careful about is coming out of one extreme and landing right into another one. The teaching of the Grace Evangelical Society’s (GES) so-called “Crossless” Gospel (CG) is the other extreme in the salvation debate. Here is the difference.

Lordship Salvation (John MacArthur) teaches salvation through faith, plus commitment of life. That is works based, man-centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

The Crossless gospel (Bob Wilkin) teaches that a lost man can be born again apart from knowing, understanding or believing in whom Jesus is (that He is deity) that He died on the cross and rose from the dead. Even worse GES teaches that a lost man can consciously reject the deity of Christ, but this in no way hinders him from being born again.

Now watch this: the GES says that if you are witnessing to a lost man and to be born again you tell him that he must believe Jesus died for his sins and rose from the dead, the GES says you are preaching a message that, in Antonio da Rosa’s words, “may indeed frustrate grace.”

For GES you are furthermore a “legalist” for preaching the necessity of belief in the cross and resurrection for the reception of eternal life. The GES believes Dr. Charles Ryrie is guilty of theological legalism because in his book So Great Salvation Ryrie teaches the necessity of belief in the death and resurrection of Christ for salvation.

LS and the CG are at polar opposite ends of the theological pendulum swing.

LS errs by addition whereas the CG errs by subtraction. Both are non-saving messages that are the extremes in the debate.

My concern for good folks like you is that while you have been recovered from LS the danger is that you may bounce to far in the other direction and land in another extremist heresy, which the GES’s Crossless gospel is.

So, no matter what you see in the debate, just strike a balance between LS and the CG. My concern for you is that you do not bounce too far off the Lordship error right into the GES error.

You can read scores of articles on the errors of, balance between and biblical answers to these two polar opposites at my blog.

"Ironic that Zane Hodges and John MacArthur - two who have very opposing views are also guilty of professing an accursed message."

The above is an example of hegelian dialectic (thesis vs. antithesis = synthesis)in action. While this clever, and diabolical method of manipulation is applied today in numerous arenas (i.e. politics, business, religion, etc..) it is obviousely in the latter where the most harm is done. In reality, it's not "ironic" that the thesis and antithesis are in error. Rather, this is a requirement for hegelian synthesis. In the case above, the desired sythesis (end product) is the destruction of Christianity.

"The above is an example of hegelian dialectic (thesis vs. antithesis = synthesis)in action. While this clever, and diabolical method of manipulation is applied today in numerous arenas (i.e. politics, business, religion, etc..) it is obviousely in the latter where the most harm is done. In reality, it's not "ironic" that the thesis and antithesis are in error. Rather, this is a requirement for hegelian synthesis. In the case above, the desired sythesis (end product) is the destruction of Christianity."

Yep. JM has been doing the dialectic thing for years now with his covenatationalism. Which is why he can make asinine statements like "salvation is not a past experience but a present reality." Bringing in this GES error only enhances the stew.

New From the Author

I have written the revised & expanded edition of In Defense of the Gospel to provide the biblical answers to Lordship Salvation. There are areas where one must balance soul liberty and Christian charity and agree to respect different views. The gospel, however, is not one of them. The works based theology of Lordship Salvation and its advocates must be vigorously debated, and biblically resisted. May God protect unsuspecting believers and the lost from the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation.

Followers

Copyright Notification

No part of this blog's articles may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means-electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise-without the prior written permission of the author(s), with the exception of brief excerpts in magazine articles and/or reviews.

Disclaimer

As a blog, this venue is open to comments by persons of differing opinions. The opinions expressed herein by various contributors do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of In Defense of the Gospel, or its owners.

Although we indulge differing opinions, we do not condone, and are not responsible for, any false or misleading statements of a libelous or defamatory nature. See 47 U. S. C. sec. 230 (c) (1).

Any slanderous remarks posted herein will be removed immediately upon notification of the offended party of specific untrue statements contained within a posted comment.